And the point missed here is that the Geneva Conventions apply ONLY BETWEEN SIGNATORIES.
Which Al Qaeda is not. As illegal combatants literally nothing you do to them is illegal. You can reject surrenders, you can deny them mail and correspondence, you can bomb them in any place, you can use any sort of weaponry on them, you can torture them for information or just for fun if you want to, and any civilians in the area wherein they are doing battle have no protections either.
It's not a secret what you have to do to be treated like soldiers. Put on a fuckin uniform that has a fuckin flag on it, and fight like men instead of snakes.
Hegseth is correct here. Applying the Geneva Conventions to illegal combatants is not legally required and is strategically retarded.
And that's not even getting into the whole problem whereby arab signatories of the Conventions have never followed them and thus are open to retaliation in kind. Arabs are barely better than animals and they only respect strength, treating them nicely just showed them that we weren't serious.
It was written to compile previous laws and rules of war together, many of which had existed for centuries. With the intent to minimize damage done to ourselves in disputes.
As with anything, inviting the lesser races into the fold was a damn fool decision based on the silly little lie of "equal".
It's a bit ironic to say that inviting the lesser races into the fold was foolish when everyone broke the laws of the Geneva and Hague conventions in WW1 and the Allied powers committed an outright genocide against the Germans in the aftermath of WW1 and in WW2.
It's pretty clear after the end of the 20th century that the Geneva Conventions, much like other expressions of civilisation, were created in a European context for European peoples. Trying to apply a European standard of civilisation across the world has been disastrous.
And the problem I think, is what happens when the government gets their way and considers homegrown "terrorist" (which are often mentally ill people who have been strung along) as enemy combatants.
No, the US does not generally consider a homegrown terrorist a "lawful combatant," but the legal status of an "unlawful combatant" for a US citizen is legally complex and debated. Instead, homegrown terrorists are typically viewed as criminals who violate US law, and are prosecuted in civilian courts. The debate centers on the US government's past attempts to define certain terrorists as "unlawful enemy combatants," a designation that has been challenged in court, particularly for US citizens apprehended on US soil.
:shrugs:
Be easier to drone strike people like luigi for sure.
Geneva Conventions don't only apply between signatories- Common Article 3 applies to everyone, universally, no signature required.
Common Article 3 also applies do your own citizens but only in civil wars, rebellions, etc- it has to be sustained combat not gangs, lone terror attacks etc.
And the point missed here is that the Geneva Conventions apply ONLY BETWEEN SIGNATORIES.
Which Al Qaeda is not. As illegal combatants literally nothing you do to them is illegal. You can reject surrenders, you can deny them mail and correspondence, you can bomb them in any place, you can use any sort of weaponry on them, you can torture them for information or just for fun if you want to, and any civilians in the area wherein they are doing battle have no protections either.
It's not a secret what you have to do to be treated like soldiers. Put on a fuckin uniform that has a fuckin flag on it, and fight like men instead of snakes.
Hegseth is correct here. Applying the Geneva Conventions to illegal combatants is not legally required and is strategically retarded.
And that's not even getting into the whole problem whereby arab signatories of the Conventions have never followed them and thus are open to retaliation in kind. Arabs are barely better than animals and they only respect strength, treating them nicely just showed them that we weren't serious.
The Geneva Convention was written by White men intended only for brother wars.
It was written to compile previous laws and rules of war together, many of which had existed for centuries. With the intent to minimize damage done to ourselves in disputes.
As with anything, inviting the lesser races into the fold was a damn fool decision based on the silly little lie of "equal".
It's a bit ironic to say that inviting the lesser races into the fold was foolish when everyone broke the laws of the Geneva and Hague conventions in WW1 and the Allied powers committed an outright genocide against the Germans in the aftermath of WW1 and in WW2.
Let's not whitewash this shit.
The Hague Conventions mostly only banned the use of poison grenades and exploding/mushrooming bullets.
The Geneva Conventions did not exist up to that point. They're post WW2.
And besides that...
The UN, and the proliferation of the idea of treating countries that hadn't invented wiping their asses yet as equals, is still fuckin stupid.
The idea of a "global community" is Babelist nonsense.
It's pretty clear after the end of the 20th century that the Geneva Conventions, much like other expressions of civilisation, were created in a European context for European peoples. Trying to apply a European standard of civilisation across the world has been disastrous.
That applies to anyone who isn't white or Japanese.
Untrue. Some of them are worse than animals. Jeets, for example.
The Geneva Conventions apply to everyone, it's international law and no group is excluded from them within the conventions themselves.
POW protections only apply to uniformed soldiers who carry arms openly.
Common Article 3 which bans murder, torture, mutilation etc applies to everyone- soldiers, rebels, terrorists, etc
You can argue, like Pete, that it shouldn't be like that- but it is.
And the problem I think, is what happens when the government gets their way and considers homegrown "terrorist" (which are often mentally ill people who have been strung along) as enemy combatants.
:shrugs:
Be easier to drone strike people like luigi for sure.
Not how that works. The Geneva Conventions apply between signatories.
They do not ban or govern anything you do to your own citizens.
Geneva Conventions don't only apply between signatories- Common Article 3 applies to everyone, universally, no signature required.
Common Article 3 also applies do your own citizens but only in civil wars, rebellions, etc- it has to be sustained combat not gangs, lone terror attacks etc.